Social Media Research Bites from SoTL Symposium

On Friday, November 13th, I had the pleasure of attending the 2nd annual (I think) Symposium of Scholarly Teaching & Learning in Post-Secondary Education, hosted by BCCampus. For an overview of participants’ experiences see the twitter hashtag #Symposium15TL. I attended and presented last year, and really enjoyed the quality of the presentations and the networking experiences that the event offered.  This year the size of the event was doubled and there were lots of excellent sessions to choose from.  I learned a lot about scholarly teaching and learning, and am going to encourage my graduate students who are working in post-secondary contexts to present next year.  However, in this blog posting I want to focus on the examples of teaching with social media (and associated research that is being undertaken) that I saw at the conference.

I learned about some really great examples of social media use in post-secondary learning contexts during the Research Bites session. In this session 12 presenters each had 3 mins to introduce and give a brief overview of their work/topic/idea.  Then we had 45 minutes or so to attend a networking session where each speaker was located at a table and
we could learn more and ask questions. It was a great conference format.  Several of the presenters were using social media in interesting ways:

A group from Simon Fraser University (Campi, Ravi, Liu and Hajshimohammadi) reported that when using video tutorials to prepare students for engineering labs, students completed their labs more quickly.  They learned that the videos needed to be short and use simplified language, but were more effective than pre-lab readings.

A series of research bites from a group in Geography at UBC including Loch Brown, Derek Turner and Arthur Green were doing some really interesting work as part of UBC’s flexible learning initiative. They described how they were exploring flexible field trips and emerging student-led technology, and examining the spaces and places of learning using data such as ip addresses.  I spent my networking time talking to Derek Turner about using backchannel technology to enhance large lectures. I was most interested in the data analysis techniques that he was using to examine the impact of having a backchannel for students to engage with each other and the instructor.

Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 11.45.41 AM

They used a WordPress plugin called pulsepress (developed at UBC to be used behind UBC logins) to have students connect by posting questions or comments in a Twitter- like environment. Students had incentives to use the tool for the first couple of weeks of the class, and could also ‘up vote’ comments.  The researchers used social network analysis techniques (using netlytic) to visualize the links between students and instructors – which were surprisingly only very loosely connected.  Using netlytic they were also able to visualize commonly used words over time (called a stacked graph). Interestingly, students used the tool to arrange meetings and for more logistical purposes for the first few weeks of class (during which time Facebook was mentioned often). After a certain point students seemed to turn to Facebook for that kind of discussion (as the frequency of logistical terms and of the word Facebook dropped off) and then used the tool to discuss more course content specific topics.

Post-conference action item: I am definitely going to look more closely at  netlytic and other social network analysis tools  (such as NodeXL and Gephi) when I am looking for ways to examine the complex nature of learning with social media.

The Value of Social Software

As I started working on my proposal for the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) 2016 I thought I might try to update some of the references.  coverI remembered that I had bought Teaching Crowds: Learning and Social Media (Dron & Anderson, 2014) at CSSE in June 2015 where I presented three times and haven’t blogged about at all! …so I cracked it open.  I was immediately sucked in…particularly by its promise of providing practical advice to educators, but also by its grounding in theoretical perspectives on learning.

The first thing to note about this text is that it is available for free at teachingcrowds.ca.  You can download the whole book or individual chapters –  although I’m enjoying my old-school hard copy.

The second thing that is interesting is the authors’ broad definition of what encompasses social software.  They describe social software as software that supports four types of interactions: one-to-one; one-to-many; many-to-many; and many-to-one.  The first three are familiar to most, but considering Google Search as a social software which aggregates the preferences of many to represent information to an individual is a perspective that is not usually embraced in literature around social media and learning. However the authors contend that there is learning potential in each and every connection.  The book provides an extensive list of types of social software and the types of interactions that can be facilitated by them.

A significant portion of the first chapter is dedicated to outlining the value of social software, but without much theoretical or empirical support. Presumably many of these points will be elaborated on later in the book. However, I think the list has immense value and I am going to repeat it here:

Social software:

  • helps build communities;
  • helps create knowledge;
  • engages, motivates, and is enjoyable;
  • is cost-effective;
  • encourages active learning;
  • is accountable and transparent;
  • spans the gap between formal and informal learning;
  • addresses both individual and social needs;
  • builds identity, expertise, and social capital;
  • is easy to use;
  • is accessible;
  • protects and advances current models of ownership and identity;
  • is persistent and findable;
  • supports multiple media formats;
  • encourages debate, cognitive conflict, and discussion;
  • leads to emergence;
  • is soft;
  • supports creativity;
  • expands the adjacent possible.

I think that complexity thinking has a lot to offer in terms of providing support for many of these claims as positive aspects of social software for learning. I am particularly interested in the points that I have put in bold and will be combing the rest of the book for support for these claims. I wish that the authors had also listed some of the challenges or limits of social software to provide a bit more of a balanced view. Things such as the rapid pace of change, and the huge volume of information or data are things that come to mind.  However, the authors do note that the last chapter is dedicated to a discussion of issues and challenges.

Present, publish! April 2015

ChicagoSome exciting news on the social media and science learning front.  Back in December I finally submitted a manuscript I’ve been working on for a couple of years. Just as Wendy and I were gearing up to present the work at NARST in Chicago we received word that it had been accepted for publication in the International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence. The presentation went really well and the work was well received (paper is available here). It was really fun to be at NARST for the first time in 5 years and a relief to find that I was still ‘in the loop’ when it comes to science education research.  Social network analysis is just starting to be used by a few researchers and complexity thinking is also starting to pop up here and there.  One of the attendees of our session even talked about our PER paper which applies complexity thinking and social network analysis to issues of student retention in higher education. I’m hoping to keep an eye on and hopefully follow up with some of the following people who presented really interesting work at NARST in Chicago:

Examining Social Media:

Stacy Olitsky (and team)  – Saint Joseph’s University – Constructing ‘Authentic’ Science: Results from a University-High School Collaboration Integrating Digital Storytelling and Social Networking

James Kisiel (and team) – California State University (Long Beach) – Student Behaviors and Discourse within an On-Line Group Homework Forum [Social Homework] in an Introductory Physics Class

Using Social Network Analysis:

Bud Talbot (and team) – University of Colorado (Denver) – Characterizing Student Interactions in a Learning Assistant Supported Biology Course: The Classroom as a Social Network

Matthew Schroyer (and team) – University of Illinois – Tracking Emergence and Development of Entrepreneurial Teacher Leaders in Science Teaching and Learning Networks.

Joshua Ellis (and team) – University of Minnesota – From New Teacher to Peer Leader: Exploring Teacher Practice in an Online Induction Program

Using Complexity Thinking:

Elon Langbeheim – Arizona State University – Learning Affordances related to Participation-in and Observation-of Particle Simulations: Hints from Seemingly Off-task Talk

So I hope to get to look at and read these papers to familiarize myself with what is happening in my area in science education. I notice that not much is happening in the specific area of social media tools or the use of complexity thinking as a theoretical frame, but some researchers are starting to use social network analysis in a variety of areas. Now Wendy and I are gearing up for CSSE 2015 in Ottawa where we are presenting some new data from the social media and science learning survey!